disclaimer of warranty
- --
You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny
you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the
immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money?
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who
3C57 52C3 EC32 6810 CD56 26F0
--
The Internet must be a medium for it is neither Rare nor Well done!
a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]John Galt /a
Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
--
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath wisdom count the number of the BSD: for
it is the number of a man; and his number is VI VI VI.
(ir-reve-rent-lations 13:17-19)
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
--
FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you!
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 05:41:28PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
2. Default copyright was established both in the Copyright Act of 1976
and the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988. The relevant
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:52:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
[reply to the real post later]
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
Let's go to another case: You do the same for OpenSSL. You've violated
the OpenSSL license, since it expressly forbids linking
update
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, I wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:52:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
[reply to the real post later]
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
Let's go to another case: You do the same for OpenSSL. You've violated
the OpenSSL
Headers trimmed. The bug can be settled on it's own merits...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 03:05:48PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:41:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
I recieved this response from
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, I don't think it's a free license for similar reasons as RMS.
Mostly because it's very vauge in places, and references things that
it really shouldn't in others. Examples:
I doubt it. RMS's REAL reason
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:40AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
I doubt it. RMS's REAL reason is that it isn't his GPL.
The real reason is that it's unclear and subject to differing
interpretations. If possible, we should either get a quick note from
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote:
John Galt said:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
This statement of freely available, however, also conflicts with the
examples given for freely availableness, such as usenet. Nothing
about a usenet posting implies free redistibutability. In fact
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:40AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
1) quote place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise
make them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to
Usenet or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:00:07PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote:
John Galt said:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
This statement of freely available, however, also conflicts with the
examples given for freely
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:42:53PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
Second, Perl was released in the mid-80s. The current copyright law
is ten years older than that. I don't know exactly when the AL was
written, but this would
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:40:02PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:40AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
1) quote place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise
make them Freely Available
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:45:16PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:42:53PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
Second, Perl was released in the mid-80s. The current copyright
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote:
John Galt said:
The copyright by definition is codified in Berne and the DMCA. Think
1990 rather than 1970...
http://www.landfield.com/faqs/law/copyright/faq/part2/
Specifically section 2.7. 1988 in the US, earlier (1971, according to part4
into the debian/copyright file?
--
You'll learn something about men and women -- the way they're supposed
to be. Caring for each other, being happy with each other, being good
to each other. That's what we call love. You'll like that a lot.
-- Kirk, The Apple, stardate 3715.6
John Galt
enough to make my own
decisions.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
incompatibility, so let's
not stir up a hornets nest by being the test case... Put it in the same
category as the OpenSSL license and the 4-clause BSD--DFSG free, but watch
the links.
--
An alcoholic is someone you don't like who drinks as much as you do.
-- Dylan Thomas
John Galt ([EMAIL
never having to say you're sorry.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
I am interested in gsview which is famous in Windows users
and a kind of ghostview or gv. But I am not sure if its license
permits us to upload to Debian or not.
(You can get the original source from
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/gsview/get36.htm)
It
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, John Galt wrote:
DFSG != GPL. The only issue that GPL incompatibility has is that it can't
be closely linked to GPL software, and the description implies that it
doesn't (standalone).
Wups! Didn't read far enough in Tommi's message. He wants to link it to
GPL
Probably all would be good with proper attribution, but I'd keep them in
non-free if I were you (proper attribution does NOT release you from
copyright restrictions, it just enhances the fair use claim).
On 18 Dec 2000, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
I am considering packaging a couple of fortune
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 03:05:16PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
Probably all would be good with proper attribution, but I'd keep them in
non-free if I were you (proper attribution does NOT release you from
copyright restrictions, it just enhances
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 12:25:19AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
Rewriting the damned GPL to be compatible with the rest of the world
might be a good place to start rewriting.
If the damned GPL didn't have that incompatibility there would be no
Debian
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:04:15PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote:
fetchmail is licensed under GPL license. What about conflict between GPL
and BSD clauses from openssl? I mean the problem with mutt and ssl. What
about lynx-ssl, links-ssl,
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:31:09AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
I hear the wheel was also not released under the GPL
I hear that the wheel is not considered intellectual property.
--
Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a
damn.
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:36:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:31:09AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
I hear the wheel was also not released under the GPL
I hear that the wheel is not considered intellectual property
not subscribed to this list.
Thanks for your time,
--
EMACS == Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
--
Sacred cows make the best burgers
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!!
confirm ?
Best regards,
--
Sacred cows make the best burgers
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!!
for it.
maybe lawyer should comment on this.
That's okay. I'm sure the Polish government will fall into line when I and
my Panzers come crashing across the border to a booming sountrack of Wagner.
--
void hamlet()
{#define question=((bb)||(!bb))}
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED
it should be. Last time I researched the MPL/NPL issue, I thought
the NPL was non-free, and the MPL (barely) free. Maybe I misremember.
--
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
the inconsistencies--most probably by failing to find
enough original Netscape code to be able to assert rights under the
NPL...
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 02:41:54PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
So is mozilla in main or non-free?
You should be able to figure that out
:
My computer isn't working now. Tech: Yes, you said that.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
.
--
You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny
you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the
immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money?
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
, John Galt wrote:
This has always been a stone in my craw: why should a keep it
legal clause make it non DFSG free?
Keep it legal is not the clause being discussed. Instead, it's
1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
forbidden by this license. Any such action
fools and money?
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own
decisions.
Who is John Galt
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Who is John Galt?/a
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
-- Ferenc Mantfeld
101 - 141 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
